Drill-down for one domain: observed risk/momentum series, current-state regime posterior, and news-coverage theme cards (coverage unusualness, not truth or importance). ARCANE NOTICES the present; it does not predict. Check as_of/stale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Which domain to drill into. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds key behavioral context: 'ARCANE NOTICES the present; it does not predict' and clarifies that news coverage measures unusualness, not truth or importance. This goes beyond schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a brief note. Front-loaded with the core purpose. The note 'Check as_of/stale' is somewhat cryptic but maintains conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description compensates by listing output components (risk/momentum series, regime posterior, theme cards) and behavioral caveats. Staleness hint adds completeness, though could be more explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter described as 'Which domain to drill into.' The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns for a given domain, enhancing understanding of the parameter's effect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Drill-down' and clearly states the resource: one domain's risk/momentum series, regime posterior, and news-coverage theme cards. It distinguishes from siblings like arcane_overview (multi-domain) and arcane_deltas (changes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for deep dive into a single domain, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The note 'Check as_of/stale' hints at temporal considerations but lacks detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: overview, domain drill-down, system status, deltas, bilateral tracking, scenario tracking, trigger chains, data streams, score composition, and capabilities. No two tools overlap in function.
All tools use the consistent pattern 'arcane_<descriptive_noun>' in snake_case, making it easy to infer purpose from the name.
10 tools is appropriate for a geopolitical risk monitoring system covering overview, detailed breakdowns, data streams, status, and analysis. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers every aspect of the server's stated purpose: current overview, domain drill-down, scenario tracking, trigger chains, bilateral relations, data streams, system status, and score composition. No obvious gaps.